Search form

You are here

Kobudo - Distinct Kata or Karate Kata

to put a final nail into the coffin or this thread I discussed this with my foremost Karate researcher Henning Wittwer.

Henning asured me that it is generally not possible for N.Johnson, that he came up with a source that is not already the subject of researchers who study the chinese martial arts and their history. He knows the works of most of them and he never stumbled accross facts that would support the discussed theory.

It is actually a big problem that most of the martial arts history in China before the Ch'ing dynasty (1644–1912) is very sketchy. The Ming dynastie (1368–1644) was before the Ch'ing dynasty. What is known from the Ming dynasty is that weapon forms played a very important role back then. With regards to the content of fighting styles it is very problematic because it is unknown how those forms looked like.

The earliest work that emphasised on what martial arts looked like at that time is the above mentionend "Chi-Hsiao Hsin Chu". It is the most important and most influential document from that time. Even the old Bubishi contained material originally published in there.

Many styles of the folk based martial arts in China are based on it and it even doesn't contain any material on a weapon like the Sai. So it is not possible that Sanchin, Seisan etc. were forms orinially used with a Sai least of all during the Ming dynasty.

The folk based styles of chinese martial arts don't have technical catalogues and historical records preserved for later generations. So there is no genealogy like in japanese Koryu martial arts. They were not so closely organised. In such a chaos it is impossible for one person or one small group to change a Kata from a weapons form to an empty hand form and all others follow that example. The others simple gave a $h!t. They did what they always did and practised theirs. That is traceable when you look at and compare old chinese boxing manuals. Due to that problem it is not known how old Kata like Sanchin and Seisan really are. It was a special trait back then to shroud the true origins in obscurity. That is why some style founders allegedly learned their stuff by watching animals fight and the like. So there are no documents that records the true origins of a style or even a single Kata.

Sanchin and Seisan are forms of those folk based martial arts in the chinese province of Fukien. And there are a lot of those styles there. Seven of those styles are called "The Big Seven". Sanchin and Seisan exist in as many versions as there are styles. Each style has its own version. Those styles also use weapons forms (also for a weapon that is called Sai in okinawan Kobudo). So there is no need to practise empty hand forms with weapons.

So I guess N.J. will not be able to back his theory up with solid historical sources.

Yesterday I posted a couple of links to White Crane showing both staff and sai katas. The staff kata carried the name Sanchin, but in Chinese. It is apparent from the form that the movements are not the same as the empty hand Sanchin kata used in Karate styles. The sai form did not even carry the name Sanchin. Interestingly enough, this style of White Crane does also have an empty hand form with the name Seven Steps, Three Battles (Sanchin) which is very similar to the Sanchin form used by several karate styles. That form can be viewed here:

This begs the question, if the empty hand Sanchin form was actually a sai form in China, why would this White Crane style have an empty hand Sanchin kata and use a totally different form for sai?

to put a final nail into the coffin or this thread I discussed this with my foremost Karate researcher Henning Wittwer.

that he came up with a source that is not already the subject of researchers who study the chinese martial arts and their history

as far as i understood most of the stuff can be deducted, and makes perfect sense when so done.

What is known from the Ming dynasty is that weapon forms played a very important role back then. With regards to the content of fighting styles it is very problematic because it is unknown how those forms looked like.

Exactly - you are emphasizing the theory of Kodo-Ryu here. Weapon forms played a very improtant role.

Kyohan wrote:

Many styles of the folk based martial arts in China are based on it and it even doesn't contain any material on a weapon like the Sai. So it is not possible that Sanchin, Seisan etc. were forms orinially used with a Sai least of all during the Ming dynasty.

You went down the wrong lane - it wasn't what you refer to as folk based martial arts. It was a weapons form for learning to handle the Sai.

Kyohan wrote:

They were not so closely organised. In such a chaos it is impossible for one person or one small group to change a Kata from a weapons form to an empty hand form and all others follow that example. The others simple gave a $h!t.

Or could it have happened that a person who learned the form with the weapons, went to an area and lost the sai, theft/accident or otherwise. And then continued to practice the form without them. Maybe even leaving the original purpuse behind, and practicing the form for the best of it - believing it had other. Or maybe someone collected these forms and only learned the shell and not the idea behind it?

Kyohan wrote:

Sanchin and Seisan are forms of those folk based martial arts in the chinese province of Fukien.

Now you counter yourself here. They hail from the chinese province of Fukien - possible. They were practiced by those who also practiced folk based martial arts. Does that then mean that it has become folk based martial arts forms from the Fukien province? No - we cannot say for sure :-)

Don't be. I just don't buy into theories that lack evidence. This case is no exception. And the fact that the Sanchin as demonstrated by N.J. seems to be a perfect fit for a pair of Sai is just coincidence, not proof.

Kyoshi wrote:

Exactly - you are emphasizing the theory of Kodo-Ryu here. Weapon forms played a very improtant role.

I don't see how that statement emphasizes anything of that theory. I just stated that weapon forms played an important role, that does not mean, that there were no empty hand forms. That also does not proof that a weapon like the Sai was already in use during the Ming dynasty.

Kyoshi wrote:

You went down the wrong lane - it wasn't what you refer to as folk based martial arts. It was a weapons form for learning to handle the Sai.

There is the martial arts of the common people (folk basesd martial arts) and there is the martial arts of the military. Both trained in empty hand forms and in weapon forms. So when I am wrong that the Sai was no weapon that was used by the commoners but by the military then why was the Sai not mentioned in the above mentioned military manual on how to train soldiers by General Chi? Why is the Sai a weapon of the folk based martial arts nowadays?

Kyoshi wrote:

Or could it have happened that a person who learned the form with the weapons, went to an area and lost the sai, theft/accident or otherwise. And then continued to practice the form without them. Maybe even leaving the original purpuse behind, and practicing the form for the best of it - believing it had other. Or maybe someone collected these forms and only learned the shell and not the idea behind it?

Ok lets picture this. According to the theory Sanchin is a form practised with a Sai. We know the Sanchin is pretty widespread especially in the south. Lets assume that one guy starts leaving out the Sai and practises Sanchin empty handed from that time on he lost his pair of Sai. How could it be that one sorry dude that lost his weapons have an influence on all other groups and folks who practised that Kata with weapons? Not one single Sanchin is know today that is practised with Sai exept the Kodo Ryu people use a Uechi Sanchin to do so (but that is a new invention)? That is highly unlikely don't you think?

Why do the groups nowadays use other Kata for honing their Sai handling skills?

Kyoshi wrote:

Now you counter yourself here. They hail from the chinese province of Fukien - possible. They were practiced by those who also practiced folk based martial arts. Does that then mean that it has become folk based martial arts forms from the Fukien province? No - we cannot say for sure :-)

I can't follow your line of argumentation here. How am I contradicting myself? The militariy manual of General Chi was highly influential on many styles in China. He fought in several huge battles and had to train millions of soldiers. That is why long fist boxing is spread all over China these days and that is why it was so influencial on other styles. Kata like Sanchin and Seisan are as far as I know part of the martial arts of Fukien. They exist in many variations. Are they trained by the folk based martial artist. Yes because soldiers learned the long fist boxing style of General Chi.

Does that then mean that it has become folk based martial arts forms from the Fukien province? No! It means those Kata were always part of the folk based martial arts in Fukien, they had not to become folk based martial arts forms.

This has been a really interesting thread, but I worry we many now end up going over old ground?

It has been stated that the kata we have been discussing were originally sai kata and this can be proven. The burden of proof is on those making the claim. If it can be proven – as is claimed – that these kata were originally sai kata, then it is reasonable to ask for that proof. It has not been provided.

In the absence of proof, then it should be accepted that the “sai interpretation” has to remain as just that: a historically unsupported modern day reinterpretation. It may be a good reinterpretation that those who practise it thoroughly enjoy and find personally convincing. That’s a long way from the actual proof that was promised though.

There are many modern day reinterpretations of kata out there; some good, some not so good. What separates this one from most is the very bold claim of being able to prove it was the original purpose of the form. If that proof is there, then it should be shared. Seeing as it is not being shared, we have to assume it does not exist and what was claimed to be proof is in fact personal belief with no historical records to back that belief up. There is however historical information that points to it being incorrect.

I think we are back to the start here and the only way forward is to return to the original question:

What is the historical evidence that backs up the claim made?

We should not try to shift the burden of proof, nor should we mistake personal acceptance as being the same as historical proof. If those making the claim want it to gain wider acceptance, then they need to provide the proof they claim to have. Failing that, they need to accept that people will not be won over by their claim of having found the original purpose of the kata discussed and will instead view what they are doing as a historically unsupported modern day reinterpretation; because that is what all the available evidence tells us it is.

To avoid repeating what has already been covered (in a very interesting and informative way by all sides I might add), I will ask again, “What is the historical evidence that backs up the claim made?” If there is none, then it may be time to wrap this one up?

I do not have these, but i would as Tom Maxwell say consider everyone slightly interested in this take contact to him he’s a splendid teacher with great technique.

Could you post some links so people know how to do that?

Thanks for your contribution to this thread. I think the topic has been thoroughly covered and direct contact links for those who want to find out more would seem to be a very appropriate way to wrap things up.